Re: [asa] Seasonal Climate Predictions

From: Janice Matchett <>
Date: Mon Aug 13 2007 - 12:55:50 EDT

At 12:23 PM 8/13/2007, PvM wrote:

>Let's put it in words Janice might understand:
>Global warming deniers who deny that there is a
>significant human component to the recent trend
>in global temperatures and who use misleading or
>misunderstood data and arguments to further
>their "case" and blow them out of proportion
>while ignoring the vaste amounts of evidences.

@ Now there you go with the doublespeak again.

I am on record here for providing THE ONLY PROOF
there is so far that there is a significant human
component in the data that the computer models
use to prove "climate change". Here is the proof
again in case you missed it the first time:

"...Use of Word ‘Denier’

First, let’s take a look at Newsweek’s use of the
word “denier” when describing a scientist who
views with skepticism the unproven computer
models predicting future climate doom. The use of
this terminology has drawn the ire of Roger
Pielke, Jr. of the University of Colorado's
Center for Science and Technology Policy
Research. “The phrase ‘climate change denier’ is
meant to be evocative of the phrase ‘holocaust
denier,’” Pielke, Jr. wrote on October 9, 2006

“Let's be blunt. This allusion is an affront to
those who suffered and died in the Holocaust.
This allusion has no place in the discourse on
climate change. I say this as someone fully
convinced of a significant human role in the
behavior of the climate system,” Pielke, Jr. explained.

Newsweek Fails Basic Arithmetic

Newsweek reporter Eve Conant was given the
documentation showing that proponents of man-made
global warming have been funded to the tune of
$50 BILLION in the last decade or so, while
skeptics have received a paltry $19 MILLION and some change by comparison.

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has
testified before the S*nate EPW committee,
explains how much money has been spent
researching and promoting climate fears.

“In one of the more expensive ironies of history,
the expenditure of more than $US50 billion on
research into global warming since 1990 has
failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate
trend, let alone a dangerous one.”

[Note: The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on
federal programs directly or indirectly related
to global warming in just the last six years,
according to one estimate.
($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this
total is funding from the UN, foundations,
universities, foreign governments, etc. Even if
you factor in former VP-AlGore's unsubstantiated
August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars
a year flows into skeptical organizations, any
funding comparison between skeptics and warming
proponents still utterly

For a breakdown of how much money flows to
promoters of climate fear, see a Janaury 17, 2007
EPW blog post:

"The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge
financial advantage over the skeptics with
numerous foundations funding climate research,
University research money and the UnitedNations
endless promotion of the cause. Just how much
money do the climate alarmists have at their
disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the
global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard
Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental
lobbying groups have massive operating budgets
compared to groups that express global warming
skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004
budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources
Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year.

Compare that to the often media derided
Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6
million annual budget. In addition, if a climate
skeptic receives any money from industry, the
media immediately labels them and attempts to
discredit their work. The same media completely
ignore the money flow from the environmental
lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and
Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received
$250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and
Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund)

The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet
they still feel the need to resort to desperation
tactics to silence the skeptics.
Could it be that the alarmists realize that the
American public is increasingly rejecting their
proposition that the family SUV is destroying the
earth and rejecting their shrill calls for
'action' to combat their computer model
predictions of a 'climate emergency?'" (See EPW
Blog for full article –

As S*nator Inhofe further explained in a
September 25, 2006 S*nate floor speech: “The fact
remains that p*litical campaign funding by
environmental groups to promote climate and
environmental alarmism dwarfs spending by the
fossil fuel industry by a three-to-one ratio.
Environmental special interests, through their
527s, spent over $19 million compared to the $7
million that Oil and Gas spent through PACs in
the 2004 el*ction cycle.”

S*nator Inhofe further explained: "I am reminded
of a question the media often asks me about how
much I have received in campaign contributions
from the fossil fuel industry. My unapologetic
answer is ‘Not Enough,’ -- especially when you
consider the millions partisan environmental
groups pour into p*litical campaigns."

Now contrast all of the above with how much money
the “well funded” skeptics allegedly receive.

The Paltry Funding of Skeptics (by comparision)

The most repeated accusation is that
organizations skeptical of man-made climate fears
have received $19 Million from an oil corporation
over the past two decades. This was the subject
of a letter by two U.S. S*nators in 2006 (See
S*nators letter of October 30, 2006 noting the
$19 Million from Exxon-Mobil to groups skeptical
of man-made global warming –

To put this $19 Million over two decades into perspective, consider:

One 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
grant of $20 million to study how “farm odors”
contribute to global warming exceeded all of the
money that skeptics reportedly received from an
oil giant in the past two decades. To repeat:
One USDA grant to study the role of “farm odors”
in global warming exceeded ALL the money skeptics
have been accused of receiving from an oil giant
over the past two decades. (Excerpt from article:
“The UnitedStates Department of Agriculture has
released reports stating that when you smell cow
manure, you're also smelling greenhouse gas
or <>LINK )

As erroneous and embarrassingly one-sided as
Newsweek’s article is, the magazine sunk deeper
into journalistic irrelevance when it noted that
skeptical Climatologist Patrick Michaels had
reportedly received industry funding without
revealing to readers the full funding
picture. The magazine article mentions NASA’s
James Hansen as some sort of example of a
scientist untainted by funding issues. But what
Newsweek was derelict in reporting is that Hansen
had received a $250,000 award from the Heinz
Foundation run by S*nator JohnK*rry’s wife Teresa
in 2001 and then subsequently endorsed K*rry for
Pr*sident in 2004.

Science Vindicating Skeptics

Finally, Newsweek’s editorial rant attempts to
make it appear as though the science is getting
stronger in somehow proving mankind is driving a
climate catastrophe. There are, however, major problems with that assertion.

Scientists are speaking up around the globe to
denounce alGore, the UN and the media driven
“consensus” on global warming. Just recently, an
EPW report detailed a sampling of scientists who
were once believers in man-made global warming
and who now are skeptical. [See May 15, 2007
report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent
Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global
Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of
Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing
New Research –

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did
carbon accounting for the Australian government,
detailed how he left the global warming funding
"gravy train" and became a skeptic. “By the late
1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that
carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of
them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of
science jobs created too. I was on that gravy
train, making a high wage in a science job that
would not have existed if we didn't believe
carbon emissions caused global warming," Evans
explained. "But starting in about 2000, the last
three of the four pieces of evidence outlined
above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The
pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence
for believing that atmospheric carbon caused
temperature increases. The new ice core data
shows that past warmings were *not* initially
caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says
nothing about the strength of any amplification.
This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt
that atmospheric carbon had any role in past
warmings, while still allowing the possibility
that it had a supporting role,” he added.

In addition, just last week, three new scientific
studies further strengthened the skeptics’ views
on climate change.
Further, a recent analysis of peer-reviewed
literature thoroughly debunks any fears of
Greenland melting and a frightening sea level
rise. [See July 30, 2007 - Latest Scientific
Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt -

Newsweek: A Media Dinosaur

The question remains: Is Newsweek even a news
outlet worth taking the time to respond to in
posts like this? Does Newsweek, a quirky
alternative news outlet, even have an impact on public policy anymore?

Journalism students across the world can read
this week’s cover story to learn how reporting
should not be done. Hopefully, that will be
Newsweek’s legacy -- serving as a shining example
of the failure of modern journalism to adhere to
balance, objectivity and fairness. Anyone who
fails to see this inconvenient truth is truly (to
borrow Newsweek's vernacular) a “denier.”

Background of recent climate science developments:

Even the alarmist UN has cut sea level rise
estimates dramatically since 2001 and has reduced
man’s estimated impact on the climate by 25%.
Meanwhile a separate 2006 UN report found that
cow emissions are more damaging to the planet
than all of the CO2 emissions from cars and

The New York Times is now debunking aspects of
climate alarmism. An April 23, 2006 article in
the New York Times by Andrew Revkin stated: “few
scientists agree with the idea that the recent
spate of potent hurricanes, European heat waves,
African drought and other weather extremes are,
in essence, our fault (a result of manmade
emissions.) There is more than enough natural
variability in nature to mask a direct connection, [scientists] say.”

The New York Times is essentially conceding that
no recent weather events are outside of natural
climate variability. So all the climate
doomsayers have to back up their claims of
climate fears are unproven computer models of the
future. Of course, you can’t prove a prediction
of the climate in 2100 wrong today. It’s simply not possible.

Climate Computer Models Not So Reliable

Recently, a top UN scientist publicly conceded
that climate computer model predictions are not
so reliable after all. Dr. Jim Renwick, a lead
author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report,
admitted to the New Zealand Herald in June 2007,
“Half of the variability in the climate system is
not predictable, so we don't expect to do
terrifically well."

A leading scientific skeptic of global warming
fears, Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former CEO of the
Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological
Institute, took the critique of climate models
that predict future doom a step further. Tennekes
wrote on February 28, 2007, "I am of the opinion
that most scientists engaged in the design,
development, and tuning of climate models are in
fact software engineers. They are unlicensed,
hence unqualified to sell their products to

Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack of the
University of Pennsylvania noted “for most of
Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than
it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely
been cooler,” Giegengack said according to a
February 2007 article in Philadelphia Magazine.
The article continued, “[Giegengack] says carbon
dioxide doesn’t control global temperature, and
certainly not in a direct linear way.”

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball explained that one
of the reasons climate models fail is because
they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in
the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2 stabilizes
in the atmosphere and its warming impact
diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or
triples, the effect on temperature would be
minimal. The relationship between temperature and
CO2 is like painting a window black to block
sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the
light. Second and third coats reduce very little
more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat
of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007
article in Canada Free Press.

New data is revealing what may perhaps be the
ultimate inconvenient truth for climate doomsayers:

Global warming stopped in 1998.

Dr. Nigel Calder, co-author with physicist Henrik
Svensmark of the 2007 book “The Chilling Stars: A
New Theory on Climate Change,” explained in July

“In reality, global temperatures have stopped
rising. Data for both the surface and the lower
air show no warming since 1999. That makes no
sense by the hypothesis of global warming driven
mainly by CO2, because the amount of CO2 in the
air has gone on increasing. But the fact that
the Sun is beginning to neglect its climatic duty
– of battling away the cosmic rays that come from
‘the chilling stars’ – fits beautifully with this
apparent end of global warming.”

Perhaps the conversion of many former scientists
from believers in man-made global warming to
and the new peer-reviewed research is why so many
proponents of a climatic doom have resorted to
threats and intimidation in attempting to silence
skeptics. (See: EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening
to ‘Destroy’ Career of Climate Skeptic -

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Aug 13 12:59:04 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Aug 13 2007 - 12:59:04 EDT